Re: Time is what we measure with a clock.
- From: Dick <remdickhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:39:45 -0500
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:42:15 -0400, r norman
<NotMyRealEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 01:52:59 -0700, wendel.fendel@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dick wrote:
What do these all have in common, they convert energy in to discrete,
uniform segments. A clock adds a counter so we can see how many units
have been released. Where is time? I can see a rod, touch it, use it
to compare my height today with last year. But, what are discrete
bits of energy counted by a mechanism witnessing?
You can count cycles. A clock is a device which is either a harmonic
oscillator or has a component that satisfies the differential equation
for a harmonic oscillator built in. So a clock is a cycle counter. Now
you can ask -how do you know that cycles are uniform?-. The answer is
you don't but you hope they are.
A measureing stick is no more authorative than a cycle counter. The
first thing you assume about a measuring stick or measuring rod is that
it is -rigid-. That means when it is carried from hither to yon, the
acceleratiion does not permanently deform the rod. Also you assume the
rod is immune to thermal effects or other environmental effects when it
is used. If this is not the case then how do you know that doing the
measurement HERE produces the same result as doing the measurement
THERE. You don't. And using another measuring device to check the
first one, only displaces the question.
In short, even the simplest measurement is theory laden.
The basic problem is distinguishing the concept of "time" or
"distance" or whatever from the method of measurement. We measure
time by counting clicks or ticks or cycles. Whether those are uniform
or not is irrelevant; that is the measurement. In olden days,
temperature was defined using a thermometer calibrated to the freezing
and boiling points of water. Unfortunately, the thermal expansion and
contraction of materials is a bit non-linear and different materials
used in the thermometer, mercury vs. some other liquid, gave different
temperature scales. Finally it was decided to use a thermodynamic
concept to fix the size of a degree. It doesn't matter whether the
step from 1 to 2 K is the same as from 100001 to 100002 K. That is
the way temperature is defined.
The same for distance and time. We know that the measuring sticks and
clocks vary in rate depending on frame of reference but we just apply
what we think is the right correction and use the resulting number as
the "proper" measure.
What time actually *is* is something else entirely.
Temperature and distance units are standardized. Boiling points and
freezing points are fixed by convention then equal increments between,
above and below are then set. Centigrade set freezing as 0 degrees,
but absolute 0, while using the same scale, shifted the bottom to
another absolute (maybe). Distance whether meters or yards are
standardized incremental units. One may find conditions which cause
variations, but formulas and technology can adjust.
However, the units of time do not have anything to do with time.
Standard units of energy release such as when a spring unwinding by
metered steps (accuracy varies) is only a convenience, not measuring
anything we can say is "time."
We can see a fifty yard line on a football field. And in high
excitement to get over it, time crawls or flashes by, but the 50 yard
line is established. It is our experience of time that varies.
Waiting for the police when someone breaks into your house, time comes
to a standstill, whereas a vacation flies by.
I find time a unique concept. It is strange that Einstein was ready
to define time as that which we measure with a clock. Clocks use many
different sources of energy to create units of standard dimension as
the energy flow is monitored, but it is energy that is being measured.
How many ticks are there in the winding of a spring or in a battery?
What has it to do with "time?"
Rearranging E=MC2 to find time results in both a plus and minus
answer. What is minus time? Why is this thing, called time, a
constant? We carry a clock to the top of a mountain then back down and
compare time with an identical clock kept a sea level changing the
force of gravity and say the time slowed, perhaps it is the energy
unit that changed not time.. After all that is what our timepieces
measure, energy flow.
Time is a convenience. Early man could "coordinate" their actions by
agreeing to meet when the sun was rising, overhead, or setting. We
coordinate our meetings with a time piece on our wrist. Cell phones
allow us to coordinate without the need for a time piece; "I am parked
outside, let's go."
I was hoping others may have considered time and had more to add to my
thoughts.
Isn't it odd that Einstein could only say "time is what we measure
with a clock?" He said much more about space and atoms.
dick
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Time is what we measure with a clock.
- From: r norman
- Re: Time is what we measure with a clock.
- References:
- Time is what we measure with a clock.
- From: Dick
- Re: Time is what we measure with a clock.
- From: wendel . fendel
- Re: Time is what we measure with a clock.
- From: r norman
- Time is what we measure with a clock.
- Prev by Date: Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
- Next by Date: Re: What is an environmental catastrophe?
- Previous by thread: Re: Time is what we measure with a clock.
- Next by thread: Re: Time is what we measure with a clock.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
